Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/10/06/01:58:02
At 09:37 AM 04/10/1997 -0400, you wrote:
>Reinier Heeres wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I would like to know if there are any other guys who'd like to see
>> NORMAL 80x86 assembly inline in their programs? Why isn't it build in?
>> Only because of the portability???
>>
>> Reinier
>>
>persoanlly i would love to see it, but, that would be hard to
>incorperate-sorta-you see, djgpp was made from the original gnu source,
>just ported and changed so it would compile :)
>
>it is made so it would compile unix/linux programs with little or no
>changes at all, so making inline assembly use intel syntax would ruin
>that, plus he would have to do alot of changing of the gcc code, plus
>as.exe would need to be changed...in short it would create one big mess
>
I think that it would be nice to incorporate the Intel Sintax without
removing the support for At&T sintax. For example using asm_intel() keyword
for that matter and the normal asm() for At&T.
This would help people porting diverse programs with inline intel assembly
sintax. I think that the Intel sintax is very important like the At&T
sintax, so it must be also supported.
Thats my opinion. Goodbye!
Ivan Baldo: baldo AT chasque DOT apc DOT org - http://www.chasque.apc.org/baldo
- Raw text -